| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/07/2009 01:50:19 AM · #26 |
It is a tough road out there for you guys - I am in support of gay marriage for the equal economic and other benefits it bestows upon the couple - I really don't see how people can legitimize opinions to the contrary.
If 'sanctity' were important, why do we allow for divorce (which is %50+!)? Better to let a kid grow up in a foster home (where chances he gets abused/endures life hardship sky rockets) than with a couple that want to give their love? My suspicion is that religious thought has a grip on this subject and I just don't think that should ever influence the substantive rights that our gov't gives the people.
It just seems rather peculiar that homosexuality has been around in some form since the beginning of recorded history and people still think it is a 'character flaw', or a 'lifestyle choice' or whatever.
Point is, homosexuality even exists in other species - It is NOT purely behavioral (and therefor a choice/sin/reason to legislate against), but even if it was, it is a private matter between private individuals that should be respected just like anything else.
We have mapped the human genome, we have traveled in space, and we have more knowledge at our fingertips than any human beings in history who have ever graced this good earth. As a society, let us occupy ourselves with issues of consequence, and forget this petty stuff.
/rant off, haha sorry |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:54:56 AM · #27 |
Hey, let's not turn this into a gay marriage thread. Land sakes, we got one of those already. The original bill was about giving citizenship to partners of gay/lesbian couples outside the country.
According to the wiki article one of the stipulations is:
(A) is in a committed, intimate relationship with another individual 18 years of age or older in which both parties intend a lifelong commitment;
I can just see the judge now...ok guys, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to see some schmeckin'. A little more...a little mooorrreee...
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 01:57:39. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 02:05:10 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I can just see the judge now...ok guys, I'm afraid I'm gonna have to see some schmeckin'. A little more...a little mooorrreee... |
I think I've seen that movie Doc. Ahaaaa man, what was the name of that movie......... arrrggghhhh!@ No. It was a TV show. Geez it was decades ago. I'll never remember it. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 02:37:31 AM · #29 |
hah fair enough, may have gotten carried away there, but I think my reasoning can still just be transferred.... (without reading the act) I don't see how we can morally justify the exclusion of legitimate homosexual relationships (which presumably make up a proportionate # of inter-country relationships), barring any practical considerations that I am unaware of.
I have actually just recently learned of a friend of a friend who only gets to see his Australian life-partner once every X amount of months because of how the visa system works, must be lots of sad stories like that out there. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 03:16:42 AM · #30 |
It works here in Holland. The country hasn't get any worse with equal rights and it has stopped a lot of the bullshit. Some of my gay-friends are married. They still look the same before and after. Maybe a little bit more relaxed and happy after it... And we all know that neither will end up in the gutter when he/she looses his/her partner.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 03:27:00 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by AP:
I have actually just recently learned of a friend of a friend who only gets to see his Australian life-partner once every X amount of months because of how the visa system works, must be lots of sad stories like that out there. |
I think that the rights concerning immigration laws pretty much suck for all couples, straight or gay. I have been busy for two years to get my girlfriend /fiancee here. And the visas here and there were a huge amount of work too. F*** all those borders. It is a human right to be in a relationship with whomever you want.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:02:45 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
I sometimes wonder at why people frequently feel it necessary to politicize things here at DPC. I have come to believe that for some, certain aspects of their lives (I am not referring to being gay or not gay alone here), seem to seep in and take over the rest of their life activities until everything becomes part of that passion.
Since I am not one of these people, I sometimes do not understand why DPC has to address liberals, war, conservatives, and on and on... To me DPC is, amazingly enough, about photography; with a side order of friendship. I sometimes feel like we are being continually put to some sort of pass-fail test. Are we diverse enough, are we critical enough, are we accepting enough, are we liberal enough, are we conservative enough, are we this or that other thing that someone needs to be reassured that we are, or somehow we are not good enough.
|
Photography is Life and Life is Photography. If you do not reflect and discuss about the world in which we live, your work will never live up to its full potential.
While these discussions are often frustrating for as many sides as there are, I think it is important to discuss them so we can converse and reflect upon each other in order to grow as artists and just plain decent people.
As for the topic of equality. I think it's too large/vague of a word to use for the topic of gay rights. It's like saying "pro-life" and "pro-choice", both sides aren't against choice or life as far as I can tell. Anyway, off topic again...I agree somewhat with others that there will never be true "equality" in the world. Our species is 200,000 years old and only in the past 150 years did we abolish slavery, only 90 years since women were given a vote, and only 60 years since different races were allowed to marry one another. Change will come eventually, it has already started and it is only a matter of time. As for the moment, I strongly disagree with blocking rights that have been given to any other kind of minority and of course the majority. They should be allowed to see each other in the hospital, they should be able to claim each other on their taxes, they should be allowed to raise children who were otherwise abandoned by straight couples, and yes, they should even be allowed to marry.
I don't know why it's such a big deal to some people. I think they are just too afraid of change and tolerance that they find the most ridiculous and round-about excuses just so they won't have to be invited to Jim and Larry's wedding one day.
Maybe it's because I live in the San Francisco Bay Area, or maybe it's because I'm only 20, but I just feel like my gay friend Marco should be able to marry the right guy if he finds him. I think I was more angry on election night than he was when the "Yes on Prop 8" measure won (changing the California constitution to limit marriage to only a man and woman). I was shocked because I didn't think I lived in such a place that would eliminate rights that had already been in effect because some people just couldn't deal with it. It shouldn't have even passed in the first place because it changed the constitution, which needs a 2/3 majority vote, not only 52%. The yes on 8 supporters claim that if you voted no on 8 you were "against marriage and against protecting children," seemingly using children as a shield for what I consider to be there own small mindedness.
some examples of the commercials: yes on 8, prince & prince Where do babies come from?
A longer tape showing different sides in Oakland
Oakland, 2 sides
might as well post a no on 8 one
Yes vs. No, Mac parody
and a more dramatic/ridiculous one just to be "fair" ;)
home invasion
I was working on the college newspaper when the elections were going on, so I couldn't ethically give my opinion to the people rallying for and against the prop. It was very interesting to hear both sides as I interviewed them, but I have to say that the yes on 8 supporters were more adamant about what they were voting for, but had a much harder time explaining the "why" to their choice than the no on 8 supporters. They mostly said it was because of their religion and because it said in the bible that gay marriage wasn't allowed. I asked them to show me in the ones they were holding, so I could quote it for the paper's article, but none of them could find it. I was asking another guy my age why he was against it, and kept pushing his responses with a counter-argument in a journalistic way so I get get further answers form him. In the end when he could not think of anything else to say, he leaned in close to me and said "to be honest I just find them disgusting and they make me sick." I didn't say anything, and did my best to absorb, both sides of the arguments, but when someone says that a very person's existence disgusts them, there isn't much more to consider.
ok, I can't write any more because I can go on and on, but to summarize: I support it, others don't, but that's just the world we live in and all we can hope for is the best.
 
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:29:52 AM · #33 |
| The more love that exists in the world, the better. I don't look down on the gay who decide to get married for economical reasons or love eachother. As for homosexuality, that is a different story. I'm an old fashioned guy and marriage is supposed to be a holy sacrament. But in today's world, the morality of it almost doesn't apply. But in an old fashioned world, it does. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 05:39:52 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
in today's world, the morality of it almost doesn't apply. But in an old fashioned world, it does. |
interesting point. if we could see way way WAAAAY back almost from the existence of man and woman, and how we have evolved in terms of what is acceptable, and what is not, you could say that our "morality" TODAY is utter garbage. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 07:37:11 AM · #35 |
Not sure I'd call this thread a discussion. Perhaps a commiseration or conversation among like-minded individuals...
I like what  ambaker posted: To me DPC is, amazingly enough, about photography; with a side order of friendship.
Personally, I'd like to keep it that way.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 07:42:06 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by dcanossa:
I have just been wondering if people out of the gay community supports equality. I don't know if any of you has ever heard of the UAFA (Uniting American Families Act), a bill that was sponsored in the Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy and in the House by Rep. Jerrold Nadler.
Americans in loving and committed relationships are often forced to make heartbreaking decisions to maintain their relationship. More often than not, these include having to leave the United States in order to be with the person they love.
There are American citizens forced to give up careers, leave behind aging parents and young adult children who rely on them and leave a community which benefits from their ongoing and active participation.
The Uniting American Families Act simply seeks to provide gay and lesbian U.S. citizens and permanent residents the right to sponsor their partners for immigration. It includes the same process and penalties as applied in heterosexual sponsorship applications.
Do we support equal Civil Rights for everyone at DPC? It will be interesting to hear what you think!
Thank you!
Diego
PS. If you want/need more information about UAFA, you can go to www.out4immigration.org and www.immigrationequality.org |
Thank you for posting this. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 11:21:58 AM · #37 |
| my best friend is a gay male, we have been best friends since pre primary, In highschool I tried to sleep with him, to then realise ten years after school after meeting up with him again, that he is living with a guy.. I always knew he was gay, he love tina turner, kylie mingoue, bete midler and kept steeling all my damn naked men magazines hahaha. But back in high school he kept denying it. But im coming to realise that all the best god damn looking men are gay. So not fair.. Anyway some of you say Women are beautiful, some women yes but not all.. And I can understand why my best friend thinks viginas are gross. Some are gross but then some arent. There not all the same. hahaha |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:11:32 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by dcanossa:
...Americans in loving and committed relationships are often forced to make heartbreaking decisions to maintain their relationship. More often than not, these include having to leave the United States in order to be with the person they love... |
I've gained some very cool friends, thanks to the intolerance. Thanks U.S.A.! :-)
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:30:47 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
The more love that exists in the world, the better. I don't look down on the gay who decide to get married for economical reasons or love eachother. As for homosexuality, that is a different story. I'm an old fashioned guy and marriage is supposed to be a holy sacrament. But in today's world, the morality of it almost doesn't apply. But in an old fashioned world, it does. |
I respect that to a point. I can understand why people want to to keep a holy ceremony in the church, and it should be the church's individual choice if they will perform same sex marriage ceremonies. However, marriage becomes legal once you go to city hall and sign the forms, so really it doesn't matter. I have a feeling that you support civil unions or domestic partnerships, but not the word "marriage." (please correct me if I'm wrong) That is fine, except for the fact that some people don't realize that the rights of civil unions and marriage are very different despite what the media has said.
-If they are in a civil union and move to another state, chances are it will not be recognized because very few states have civil unions
-Immigration for a potential spouse, like the OP said, doesn't exist. I realize that if I loved a man in Brazil, it would also be hard to bring him here, but at least I have the option.
-Joint Taxes are a big one, there aren't any financial "benefits" for civil unions
-Benefits, civil unions give some, but here is a list showing what they do not allow denied legal benefits
So where is the morality in this? I understand wanting to hold onto tradition, but the world is not stagnant and if you do not flow with the change, you will be left behind.
|
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:32:03 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by Digital_Susie:
I always knew he was gay, he love tina turner, kylie mingoue, bete midler ... |
Geesh, Susie... *I* love Tina Turner and Bette Midler, also Barbra Streisand and Liza Minnelli, and *I'm* not gay, jejeje� Now, Kylie Minogue I don't pay much attention to...
R.
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 13:01:29. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:54:27 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually, it isn't a bad bill, although I'm a bit unsure how it can prevent anybody from declaring permanent partnership purely for immigration purposes (although I suppose we have heard of similar pretend marriages, at least on TV). |
BBWAAHHH haha! You are kidding me right? What makes you think people will be any more likely to marry for immigration purposes when gay marriages are allowed than now? On TV? It's kind of endearing how sheltered you are Doc! :P I know one good friend that married her boyfriend for immigration purposes who def does not want to be married, another person that was considering it to help a friend... a lesbian at that!
Immigration or no, it is a big undertaking to get married. But for immigration purposes, there is a huge burden of truth, living together for several years, check-ups, questions, you are pretty much under a microscope. Which for people who really are married and in love I think is a grand intrusion. If they are willing go threw all that to be a citizen... well good luck to them! And anyway, at that point they practically are married... living together, check. Know facts about each other, check. Loveless, check. haha. Only joking... mostly.
Shall I even mention the old dude that lived near my friend who had a mail order bride? He was not a winner... poor gal really got the bum end of the deal ending up with that creepy old dude in a 5th wheel... yikes.
No no. I don't think this allowing gay people to marry partners from other countries will do anything but allow gay people to marry partners from other countries. Sure there will be people that fake it, but that happens already. No reason to exclude the people that really are in love. If that were the case we'd have to do away with it completely.
Tv... heh. ;)
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 12:56:49. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 12:59:26 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
The more love that exists in the world, the better. I don't look down on the gay who decide to get married for economical reasons or love eachother. As for homosexuality, that is a different story. I'm an old fashioned guy and marriage is supposed to be a holy sacrament. But in today's world, the morality of it almost doesn't apply. But in an old fashioned world, it does. |
I see it a little differently. I see holy matrimony as the sacramental part of marriage. Marriage is the legally binding contract that can be done in front of a judge or minister, while matrimony is the religious ceremony, the sacrament. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:29:28 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
The more love that exists in the world, the better. I don't look down on the gay who decide to get married for economical reasons or love eachother. As for homosexuality, that is a different story. I'm an old fashioned guy and marriage is supposed to be a holy sacrament. But in today's world, the morality of it almost doesn't apply. But in an old fashioned world, it does. |
I see it a little differently. I see holy matrimony as the sacramental part of marriage. Marriage is the legally binding contract that can be done in front of a judge or minister, while matrimony is the religious ceremony, the sacrament. |
Ok so that leaves you where? Yes for gay marriage as it is a legal entity? |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:46:26 PM · #44 |
Countries are like the toothpaste aisle in Wal-mart. Ya gotta find the one that fits you best. None will be perfect.
Oh... perhaps I should have used swimsuits as an example instead of toothpaste. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:54:39 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
The more love that exists in the world, the better. I don't look down on the gay who decide to get married for economical reasons or love eachother. As for homosexuality, that is a different story. I'm an old fashioned guy and marriage is supposed to be a holy sacrament. But in today's world, the morality of it almost doesn't apply. But in an old fashioned world, it does. |
I see it a little differently. I see holy matrimony as the sacramental part of marriage. Marriage is the legally binding contract that can be done in front of a judge or minister, while matrimony is the religious ceremony, the sacrament. |
Ok so that leaves you where? Yes for gay marriage as it is a legal entity? |
I have nothing against gay marriage as a legal entity. In my own personal beliefs I have nothing against it religiously as well, but being a Catholic, I also understand that the catholic church can be very slow to reform, and the issue of gay marriage is one, that in the foreseeable future, they will not change on.
I was simply outlining the difference in the meaning of matrimony and marriage as I know it. :) |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:55:53 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Countries are like the toothpaste aisle in Wal-mart. Ya gotta find the one that fits you best. None will be perfect.
Oh... perhaps I should have used swimsuits as an example instead of toothpaste. |
Nuh uh! I have the perfect swimsuit!
Wait... no I don't. Nah, you're right. :) Toothpaste on the other hand... |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 01:57:39 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
The more love that exists in the world, the better. I don't look down on the gay who decide to get married for economical reasons or love eachother. As for homosexuality, that is a different story. I'm an old fashioned guy and marriage is supposed to be a holy sacrament. But in today's world, the morality of it almost doesn't apply. But in an old fashioned world, it does. |
I see it a little differently. I see holy matrimony as the sacramental part of marriage. Marriage is the legally binding contract that can be done in front of a judge or minister, while matrimony is the religious ceremony, the sacrament. |
Ok so that leaves you where? Yes for gay marriage as it is a legal entity? |
I have nothing against gay marriage as a legal entity. In my own personal beliefs I have nothing against it religiously as well, but being a Catholic, I also understand that the catholic church can be very slow to reform, and the issue of gay marriage is one, that in the foreseeable future, they will not change on.
I was simply outlining the difference in the meaning of matrimony and marriage as I know it. :) |
I know! But its surprising the number of people that KNOW marriage can be a solely legal union and still use religion as a barrier against gay marriage or using the word marriage. Just wanted to see where you stood. :) |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 02:04:41 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Digital_Susie:
But im coming to realise that all the best god damn looking men are gay. So not fair.. |
Neither is the apparent fact that all the best women (at least around here) have girlfriends ... :-( |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 02:04:49 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually, it isn't a bad bill, although I'm a bit unsure how it can prevent anybody from declaring permanent partnership purely for immigration purposes (although I suppose we have heard of similar pretend marriages, at least on TV). |
BBWAAHHH haha! You are kidding me right? What makes you think people will be any more likely to marry for immigration purposes when gay marriages are allowed than now? On TV? It's kind of endearing how sheltered you are Doc! :P I know one good friend that married her boyfriend for immigration purposes who def does not want to be married, another person that was considering it to help a friend... a lesbian at that! |
Once again Monica your enthusiasm gets you ahead of the facts. The bill isn't addressing marriage at all. Read the link. It's setting up a means for US citizens with same-sex "permanent partners" outside the US to advocate for their partner to become a citizen. My point is that this setup obviously is open to the same abuse as the rule that marriage gives you an "in" to the country. I'm not saying anything more or anything less. You just assume because it's me posting I must be wrong. Grow up a bit.
You may have also missed that I'm not against the bill....
Message edited by author 2009-07-07 14:05:53. |
|
|
|
07/07/2009 02:31:54 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by escapetooz:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Actually, it isn't a bad bill, although I'm a bit unsure how it can prevent anybody from declaring permanent partnership purely for immigration purposes (although I suppose we have heard of similar pretend marriages, at least on TV). |
BBWAAHHH haha! You are kidding me right? What makes you think people will be any more likely to marry for immigration purposes when gay marriages are allowed than now? On TV? It's kind of endearing how sheltered you are Doc! :P I know one good friend that married her boyfriend for immigration purposes who def does not want to be married, another person that was considering it to help a friend... a lesbian at that! |
Once again Monica your enthusiasm gets you ahead of the facts. The bill isn't addressing marriage at all. Read the link. It's setting up a means for US citizens with same-sex "permanent partners" outside the US to advocate for their partner to become a citizen. My point is that this setup obviously is open to the same abuse as the rule that marriage gives you an "in" to the country. I'm not saying anything more or anything less. You just assume because it's me posting I must be wrong. Grow up a bit.
You may have also missed that I'm not against the bill.... |
When did I say you were wrong? Jesus dude. Grow up? That's uncalled for. I was teasing in jest you don't have to get so uppity. So I called it marriage instead of "permanent partners" my point still stands does it not? Of course it can be abused. I AGREE with you on that point. Although I reach the conclusion, if it is already abused, why make that fact stop gay marriages, partnerships, unions, mergers WHATEVER THE HECK you want to call them?
I didn't miss that point. I was addressing your point about it being used the wrong way to say... yea and so? It already is. I just don't get where you come from sometimes honestly. You said you were unsure of how the bill can prevent it. Well, the same way that is already in place I would assume. Same as gay adoption standards would be the same as any adoption standards. And they are tough!
I was addressing the fact that you seem to still place gay people in this bizarre "oh my how can this work?" category that is no different than how things ALREADY work. Nothing is going to change. Some will use it the right way, and some won't. People are people. Gays shouldn't have more standards than anyone else. |
|
